As you can see, I really want tabbed projects. So for example, let's say you create a folder in your project library. In that folder you create versions of projects. What I would like to see happen is the option to click the folder and have it load all versions of the project (or all of the projects in that folder) as tabs that I can click through like sequences in the old Final Cut or Premiere. This would make it much easier/faster to go from project to project (sequence to sequence) instead of having to go back out to the project library each time I want to go to different versions of that project. Also, hoping this option would then give me the ability to nest projects like sequences - IMHO better than compound clips.
Not really MY personal wish. But the three things I hear over and over as a reason why my clients won't adopt it.
1. No OMF Audio (yes I know you can, but it's not built in and therefore considered "non-pro")
2. Not easy to share media and projects. (It must be as easy as it is with FCP 7)
3. Cannot open legacy projects from previous versions. (Again this has to be super easy)
If Apple addresses these issues with much fanfare, then there is hope that I may get to cut jobs on FCPX not just at my home .
Sean Lander - Editing since 1982 - AVID 1991 - FCP 1999 - FCPX 2011
Realizing they're not your wishes... I'll reply anyway for posterity..
"1. No OMF Audio (yes I know you can, but it's not built in and therefore considered "non-pro")"
Probably not gonna happen, unless a 3rd party picks it up. AAF's out of X2Pro are amazingly accurate, and can be opened by most modern DAW's and Avid NLE's. As far as info in the file, OMF's kinda suck relative to AAF's
"2. Not easy to share media and projects. (It must be as easy as it is with FCP 7)"
I have a feeling that will change at some point, hopefully sooner than later. Lot's of people have requested it and they do take that into account.
"3. Cannot open legacy projects from previous versions. (Again this has to be super easy)"
7toX does this perfectly, and couldn't be easier.
Other than #2, people who need this functionality already have it, for about 100-150 bucks (X2Pro LE vs. the "pro" version, which is worth the extra $$
Yes this would be great! This is something I had in back in y head for awhile now, especially since I do 90% REDcode workflow. Just think about having the RED footage on a central RAID, ProRes on workstation/local RAID and to have the proxy available for the road.
Yeah some more interactivity between projects would be great. Not to big of a fan to use scenes in Compound Clips. I rather use Projects as scenes and then have a master project where you can patch them together.
Disproportionate Pictures wrote: I think 4K ubiquity is about 5 years off-
That is true, the workflow is what will be first as many tv shows were posting in HD even though most people didn't have HDTV or even DTV sets yet. In a way, we have been dealing with 4K workflow for about five years now with Red. Just not finishing in 4K.
Honestly, I don't foresee having a room big enough to have a TV that I could even see the difference in 4K. Heck, Netflix just finally turned the switch on 1080p content last week. All the 1080p set top devices were only seeing 720p before. I have an Apple TV 2 that tops out at 720p, and the quality got much better this week because the compression was less. Resolution isn't everything, it's important, but it's not the main issue.
Thankfully the ATVs are just hockey pucks with ipod guts so they can update it when h.265 is finally sorted. Good you brought up h.265, that's where I think people will really see the difference in the better compression.
I'm not looking forward to delivering h.264 to clients long after h.265 is out because their OS hasn't been updated since George W. Bush was president.
Darren Roark wrote: Honestly, I don't foresee having a room big enough to have a TV that I could even see the difference in 4K. Heck, Netflix just finally turned the switch on 1080p content last week. All the 1080p set top devices were only seeing 720p before. I have an Apple TV 2 that tops out at 720p, and the quality got much better this week because the compression was less. Resolution isn't everything, it's important, but it's not the main issue.
Darren- I believe you're mistaken about Netflix specs.
Netflix HD has been 1080p for a while now, at least on my AppleTV3. I think since you're running an aTV2, it's your hardware that's the limiting factor. At NAB, Netflix debuted their "SuperHD", which is a higher bit-rate encode which was available only thru specific ISPs and if you're connection met the data-rate cutoff. It's been expanded now to all people who meet the data-rate requirements and on more devices-
I'm not sure what it's showing me on my computer screen. I'll have to look into that.
You are correct that 4K will not be beneficial to all viewers. But there is a bell curve on the benefits- people looking at computer screens, like my 27" iMac from 2' away will benefit. Then it tapers off as you get into the 40" screen from 10' away crowd, and then becomes beneficial again as you get into larger-screen home theatres, like my 92" projection screen which I view from about 7' away.
But unlike 3D, I don't believe 4K is a fad- I think it's a natural progression of the technology that's coming even if it doesn't benefit all viewers. Heck, many people don't benefit from 1080p over 720p in their current viewing conditions. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be making stuff at 1080.
You are right, I did get confused by the Super HD label, thanks for pointing that out.
I have an Apple TV 3 as well and I couldn't see a difference between the 720p and the 1080p setting on a 1080p 55" TV until this week. On the computer it still looks terrible due to flash. (Breaking Bad started to look WAY better this week.)
Like you said being close up to a beyond HD display makes a difference. Those $999 4K Seiki TVs look amazing, but only if standing 4 feet from it.
Using FCPX for 4K Red footage now has never been easier, I will most likely just finish in 4K from now on to future proof the content.
3D and 4K, neither are fads. "Gravity" will blow everyone away with how 3D can be used to truly aid the story. It's amazing. Again, off topic.
Netflix SuperHD 1080p had been pretty much limited to Netflix Direct Connect partners. Everyone else had been seeing HD as 720p.
So while Netflix has had 1080p for awhile it wasn't widely available until last week and only on supported devices (as far as the 1080p is concerned).
My cable provider is a Direct Connect Partner. My 2008 NetFlix enabled Blu-Ray player could not get SuperHD. My AppleTV3 is able to get it though. As of last week you no longer have to be using a Direct Connect Partner as a provider.
I hope that clarifies it.
BTW I'm not so sure current AppleTVs would handle HEVC/H.265 well. Hardware decoding would play a significant role just as it does with current H.264 encoding. That would likely require new hardware in a new AppleTV.
Exactly cseeman. I had a aTV3 and a Direct Connect partner, so I think I saw SuperHD content pop up in May or June. Basically, if you don't see the "SuperHD" label, then you aren't getting the content at the higher bit-rate and 1080p resolution.
@Darren. I saw several h.265 tests at NAB, and I was blown away at the quality of the content that was being presented on a 72" 4K display at between 3-5Mb/s.
While h.265 has the potential to HALF the data size of current 1080p files, I hop Apple take a more pragmatic approach. I'm used to the download sizes now, and would be much more interested in a doubling of quality vs half the file size.
And of course, h.265 enables more feasible delivery of 4K content. We'll have to see how that pans out.
I think we're years away before 4k becomes dominant in the home. Of course it'll start in the near future but we're a long way off for the masses.
To see the difference generally would require a bigger TV and larger room. That would be cost prohibitive for a long time. Even if an 75" UHD TV eventually matched the price of a 75" HDTV not too many people have that kind of space nor that kind of money even at comparable prices.
At the smaller sizes such as the typical 32" to 55" the price would also have to match and, at that point, manufacturers would probably stop making HDTVs. People aren't likely to spend more (pre price match) because there's virtually no visual difference at that size at typical in home living room viewing distances.
The last study I saw (which was a few years ago) state the average family replaces their TV every 5 years. That might have even slowed given the current economy. Someone buying an HDTV today isn't likely going to replace it before 2018 or even later.
So let's say it was 2015 (15 plus months) before there was a price size match. The first wave of purchases would be from people who bought their last TV around 2010 or earlier. So even we're looking at about 2018 or so until it becomes close to a majority at the earliest and I think it may be even later.
After all we're here in 2013 and we still have people screaming in these forums about how they have to deliver standard def DVDs. I've seen some fairly recent studies that show that most people are still watching mostly uprezed SD on their HDTVs.
UHD "4K" will be more ubiquitous on the production side a lot sooner than it will be on the consumer side... even if the very first consumers might see it by 2015 or sooner.
If you're doing corporate video or even very local cable TV spots, you'd be a long way off from UHD 4K... especially since much of what you might do has a fairly short lifespan. UHD 4K certainly has other good uses such as the ability to stabilize or reposition shots in a 1080 timeline though.
I was chatting about this with a mate in a beer garden recently. I agree that for content viewing most people don't need 4k, and mainly for the room size issue.
But I think many people will adopt it because it's what the manufacturers will be pitching and because they just want it, it's "Ultra" HD after all.
My thoughts are that all broadcast will become resolution optional, like YouTube has been for years, perhaps with content provider restrictions based on which package you get. For this to work the content of course has to be shot and finished at the highest available resolution.
We got talking about Super Hi Res 16K too. I reckoned the broadcast industry wouldn't skip 4k and go straight for it as some suspect may happen. perhaps for certain special events such as Wimbledon, The World Cup etc. Like 3D has been getting experimented with more recently.
I do think, not quite so soon, that content will be shot at 16k but generally for 4k finishing.
I'm not so sure about how this could be implemented but I think that content providers could offer a 16k service for pubs, clubs, events etc. where the larger screen/resolution would be useful. And that the odd football player, pimp, rapper, serious film fanatic etc. would love this in their massive homes.
… for me, all those 'featureitis' is beyond real-wolrd experience: 3D was a gimmick, people once or twice used, than, sitting on the couch with this ugly glasses … no way!
Same with 'Retina', how Apple calls it, or UHD, or 4k … on a mobile, a 'dot-less' experience is fine; on a TV? Just sit a few meters away, and even an ol' Tube doesn't show pixels nor lines.-
No, for me, there's two things, why 4k is an opportunity:
• re-framing - that's for 'makers'
• multi-window-displaying - that's for consumers (like me )
My flatTV has two tuners, allows pic-in-pic: while watching the news, I can follow the soccer-match on a tiny insert.
My dream is a whole wall as display! A 'window' with a news-ticker, another one with weather, is my favorite sit-com running or ads, has my movie started or is still the talk-show going on .... plus web-browsing, Twitter, Facebook, Gmail, stuff ...
That would be a good reason for more pixels ... 'quality'? Common people don't notice the difference btw SD and HD; ever went into some super-media-store? 90% TV are wrong set, 'all knobs to max' - better pic quality is no selling topic.- MORE pictures would be one… - imho.